Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, what is the regular order? Are we permitted to speak at this point, or are there only amendments in order?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, it was many days ago, it seems to me, that I spoke on this treaty. We have been on it for 4 days. I accepted the invitation to speak early on, like the leadership suggested. All this time has passed. Tonight, as we choose to do something rather historic, which I have no doubts about it in my mind and I believe it will be proper and I believe America will be very proud that we enlarge NATO tonight, all of the ominous predictions I believe will not happen and we will just have laid out another great big giant American stake for freedom, prosperity, and democracy. I believe that is the way it is going to work. I was most impressed as I studied this and met with different people in my office. I met with the Ambassador of Hungary, Gyorgy Banlaki. He was in my office visiting. My reason for being overwhelmingly in favor of this is what he said to me in the office. Let me quote it. It is very simple. It is two sentences. The people of my country would like to be able to choose our own allies. We would like to enjoy all those things that history has denied us. A few days ago I was here to say this is the Senate's chance to make the hopes of Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic come true. Let them choose their own allies, for they have been denied that in the past. They have been denied the right to choose their own allies. We all know that part of history. In fact, they have been forced to choose their allies and to be part of their international arrangement, which was not for peace, as it turned out, but for nothing but troubles for the world and for these countries. We all know that. I believe what we are doing tonight is typically American. We are saying to the three countries that were denied freedom and denied the right to choose their allies that we are glad that you are choosing the allied group that we are part of, and we are glad to have you. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask that I be permitted to speak for 2 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. So the vote means we are going to vote for it or not, and we can have a vote on Bosnia if we want it, whenever we want, whatever we do with your amendment.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor. Executive Amendment No. 2325 (Purpose: To require the President to submit the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to the Senate for its consideration under the Treaty Power of the Constitution)

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, can I ask a question of Senator Smith?

Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I was thinking. Do you mean if I vote no on this, 3 weeks from now if we want to vote again in the Senate on the Bosnia policy, I can't vote?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the NATO issue. I understand that we have 10 minutes before a vote. Is that correct?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to address the legislation before the Senate, the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as members of the NATO alliance. Mr. President, let me begin by sharing a statement made to me last fall by Hungarian Ambassador Banlaki during his visit to my office. He said, ``The people of my country would like to be able to choose our own allies. We would like to enjoy all those things that history has denied us.'' Mr. President, I am here today to say, this is the U.S. Senate's chance to make Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic's hopes come true--let them choose their own allies for they are choosing to join NATO where they have been denied in the past the right to choose their own allies. We all know that. We all understand that. Let me be clear--I am fully supportive of this treaty before the Senate allowing these three countries membership into NATO. NATO is an alliance that has been a success beyond anyone's expectations--it has never been permeated--and since its inception, no great wars have been fought within its borders. NATO embodies our continued commitment to Europe. Its existence ties U.S. security to peaceful relations among our European allies. The historic, political and cultural connection between the U.S. and Europe provide the foundation for this transatlantic alliance. The objective of the myriad institutions and organizations created in the aftermath of World War II were a reaction to the carnage of two great wars in the first half of this century. The NATO alliance, the Organization for Cooperation and Development, and the European Union were all created with one purpose in mind--preventing further conflict between the states of Europe. This goal of peace was achieved. The only tragic failure in the history of these alliances was their inability to encompass nations beyond the Iron Curtain. Today we have the opportunity to realize what was impossible only a few years ago--expanding a cooperative alliance to the nations previously locked in a coercive pact. I have listened to many of the arguments for amending this treaty and for delaying this treaty. I have also heard the criticism aimed at the U.S. Senate for not debating it further. So let me make this point--NATO was a defensive alliance. But it was never an exclusive alliance. We in the free world waited for the day when the rest of Europe would be free--free from tyranny, free from communism, and free from the everyday controls placed on the people of Eastern and Central Europe. Mr. President, that day is here. These countries are free. They have been free for 7 years. They have struggled to establish democratic, free market societies. To a greater or lesser degree, all three of them are being successful. They desire a place at the table among the democratic, free states of the West. And in my opinion, we should have allowed them to join NATO sooner than 1999, as this treaty before us states. This Senate would be foolhardy to turn its back now on these countries or even to continue to delay the treaty's implementation. In January, I visited the NATO headquarters in Brussels and met with NATO officials as well as the ambassadors from the new member countries. I was impressed by their perspective that this was not NATO expanding out to engulf these countries, but rather this was Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic asking to come into NATO. It is crucial to remember that NATO is not expanding against any sovereign will, but exactly the opposite. This treaty allows the West to let these countries fulfill their destinies--and if this Senate does not allow the treaty to pass and pass quickly--we are denying them the ultimate freedom--as the Hungarian Ambassador said--to choose their own allies. I do not believe that Russia should fear the free association of allies, even those that might have been former enemies. There is nothing for Russia to fear. They should be reassured that the borders of Russia are peaceful today, that there is a united and growing Europe. They should be welcoming of NATO's ability to maintain peace and harmony among its members. I would like to address those Senators who have expressed the need to link European Union membership with NATO membership. We must recognize that NATO enlargement, European Union expansion and monetary union are inextricably linked. Last fall, I began considering the different arguments for and against this treaty. The Committee which I chair, the Senate Budget Committee, held a series of hearings on U.S.--European issues which gave me a different perspective to the many questions about the U.S. and Western European roles in Eastern Europe. We cannot ignore that it was the presence of a U.S.-led NATO that provided the security for European Union that has facilitated its economic development. Without sovereign security, economic security cannot happen. These are exciting, new times in Europe. We have Europe in the next months uniting beyond its original common market alliances to become a monetary union. While I know European Union membership is desired by Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, EU membership is very different from NATO membership. And Monetary Union cannot even be considered until membership to the EU has been granted. Someday, I am convinced, they will become members of the European Union. Some day, when they have developed their free markets which are emerging and their emerging new democracies, they will also be part of the new monetary union, the new single currency that many European countries will have in the not too distant future. They need the security and the structures of democracy to make capitalism work. To tie NATO membership with European Union membership at this time would not be wise. Defense security first will then lead to economic security. On costs, over the last few months, I have had CBO, GAO and the administration explain their estimates of the costs of NATO expansion. CBO estimates that the costs to the U.S. will approximate $100 million per year for the next four or five years. From the perspective of the Budget Committee, this cost is very affordable when compared to the overall levels of defense spending this year of $272 billion that we approved for the 1999 budget resolution. Let me conclude Mr. President, that while the debate on NATO has raised several issues, one issue keeps dominating my thoughts. Here is an alliance, that once was designed to respond to the threats of the Cold War. Those threats included the armies of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Now this same alliance is being asked by those same three countries to be allowed to join today. How can we possibly say no? I have no doubt that we are witnessing a major event in the histories of these former Warsaw Pact countries as well as the Free World. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``For Expansion: The Case Clinton Isn't Making'' from The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 1998, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is a real honor today to introduce legislation, together with Senator Bingaman, to honor Representative Steve Schiff. This legislation designates a special auditorium at the Sandia National Laboratories as the ``Steve Schiff Auditorium.'' Steve spoke in this Auditorium on several occasions, as part of his long service to the people of New Mexico. I think everyone knows that Steve Schiff exemplified all that was good about public service: integrity of the highest order, deep and fundamental decency, and an acute and open mind. He went about his business quietly, but with wonderful efficiency. He was great at telling stories, usually about himself. He was a model for all politicians to admire. Steve came to New Mexico from Chicago, where he was born and raised. He served the people of New Mexico in different capacities since 1972, when he graduated from the Law School at the University of New Mexico. Before election to Congress in 1988, he served as District Attorney for eight years. One of Steve's favorite local programs was his Tree Give-Away Program. For eight years, Steve held a Saturday tree give-away day at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. He gave away more than 115,000 trees. Through those trees, he shared his own hope, faith, and love. Those trees now flourish throughout the Albuquerque area in New Mexico as lasting symbols of this man. In a similar way, his legislative achievements continue to serve the American people as another reminder of this great American. Along with those trees and his legislation, the Steve Schiff Auditorium will serve as a lasting memorial. I am happy and honored to have been a part of his life. I think he would be pleased that this major facility at Sandia National Laboratories, an auditorium where many events occur, many events he has sponsored, that he desires that we talk about in our Federal Government as it pertains to nuclear weapons and research, that it be designated after him.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is a real honor today to introduce legislation, together with Senator Bingaman, to honor Representative Steve Schiff. This legislation designates a special auditorium at the Sandia National Laboratories as the ``Steve Schiff Auditorium.'' Steve spoke in this Auditorium on several occasions, as part of his long service to the people of New Mexico. I think everyone knows that Steve Schiff exemplified all that was good about public service: integrity of the highest order, deep and fundamental decency, and an acute and open mind. He went about his business quietly, but with wonderful efficiency. He was great at telling stories, usually about himself. He was a model for all politicians to admire. Steve came to New Mexico from Chicago, where he was born and raised. He served the people of New Mexico in different capacities since 1972, when he graduated from the Law School at the University of New Mexico. Before election to Congress in 1988, he served as District Attorney for eight years. One of Steve's favorite local programs was his Tree Give-Away Program. For eight years, Steve held a Saturday tree give-away day at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center. He gave away more than 115,000 trees. Through those trees, he shared his own hope, faith, and love. Those trees now flourish throughout the Albuquerque area in New Mexico as lasting symbols of this man. In a similar way, his legislative achievements continue to serve the American people as another reminder of this great American. Along with those trees and his legislation, the Steve Schiff Auditorium will serve as a lasting memorial. I am happy and honored to have been a part of his life. I think he would be pleased that this major facility at Sandia National Laboratories, an auditorium where many events occur, many events he has sponsored, that he desires that we talk about in our Federal Government as it pertains to nuclear weapons and research, that it be designated after him.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a very important education bill before us today. It is a revolutionary education bill. It encompasses a major philosophical shift. This legislation is as significant as when we, as a society, decided that it was okay, in fact desirable, to teach girls to read. It is as big of a philosophical shift as when the Supreme Court struck down separate but equal schools in the 1960's. This bill stands for the proposition that during a time when our technological capability is undergoing exponential change, education also needs exponential change not incremental tinkering. To understand the magnitude of this proposed change, start with old adage ``follow the money.'' The Gorton amendment takes the money and provides three different paths for it to follow. Instead of a myriad of overlapping programs, each with its own set of guidelines, principles, and educational commandments, states are given maximum flexibility. Flexibility not only on ``what'' to do with the federal education dollars but ``how'' those federal dollars should be delivered to states. States can opt to send funds directly to local school districts minus the federal regulations; or--states can decide they want their federal money to be sent to the state education authority without federal regulations or--states can opt to continue to receive federal funds under the current system. States are supposed to be laboratories for government experiments. The Gorton amendment allows this experimentation so that Congress will have some concrete examples and data to see how each approach works. This bill stands for the proposition that the best decisions regarding education are local decisions and this amendment gives the federal purse to the local decision makers. This bill stands for the proposition that our schools need to do things differently. Too many kids are merely getting ``social promotions'' to keep them in a class with their age group regardless of whether they have learned their lessons. It is a sad state when many of our graduates can't read the diplomas they receive at graduation. Too many schools don't teach the basics any more, and what they do teach isn't taught very well. Another important philosophical shift encompassed in this legislation is the long-overdue, common-sense revelation that it is reasonable to expect teachers to pass a competency test before we can expect our students to be able to pass tests. I am pleased that this bill includes a provision providing for teacher testing and merit pay. The bill now includes an amendment to provide new grants to states that (1) test K-2 teachers for proficiency in the subject area they teach and (2) has a merit based teacher compensation system. In line with my belief that teacher competence is key to improving American education, this bill creates incentives for states to establish teacher and merit pay policies. I believe the best teachers should be rewarded for their efforts to educate our children. A little competition in our public schools would be a good thing for rewarding these teachers who excel at their profession and motivating those who may need to improve their performance. The MERIT amendment would use the Eisenhower Professional Development Program (Title II) to provide incentive funds to states that establish periodic assessments of elementary and secondary school teachers, including a pay system to reward teachers based on merit and proven performance. The legislation would not reduce current funding for the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. Incentives will be provided to states that establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. The amendment permits the use of federal education dollars to establish and administer these programs. The Eisenhower program, established in 1985, gives teachers and other educational staff access to sustained and high-quality professional development training. In 1998, the Congress approved $28.3 million, $10 million more than in 1997, for the Eisenhower program to provide in- service training for teachers in core subject areas. The President requested $50 million for the Eisenhower program in 1999, an increase of $26.7 million above the $28.3 million provided in 1998. New Mexico received $2.4 million in 1997 for all 89 school districts. The President funds his 1999 request at the expense of Title VI, Innovative Program Strategies, which New Mexico also heavily utilizes. He requests no funding for this program, which received $350 million in 1998. This is but one step forward in our bid to improve the educational performance of American students. This amendment supports the principle that all children deserve to be taught by well-educated, competent and qualified teachers. This bill also builds upon the education savings accounts enacted last year. It expands the amount of money that can be saved and expands its uses to include K-12. About 14 million individuals are expected to sign up for these accounts by the year 2002. Contributions can be saved to cover college expenses or used when needed to pay for a wide range of education expenses during a student's elementary and high school years. Examples of eligible expenses include text books, computers, school uniforms, tutoring, advanced placement college credits, home schooling, after- school care and college preparation courses. A tutor can make the difference between success or a student falling hopelessly behind. A computer can open the world, as well as cyberspace to a child. Children growing up in homes with computers will be the achievers. I am afraid children growing up in homes without computers will be at a disadvantage. This bill will allow money from an education savings account to be spent on a computer, software, and lessons on how to use the computer. The bill has several solid worthwhile provisions. It raises the limits on annual contributions to an education IRA from $500 to $2,000 per year, and allows accounts to be used for K-12 expenses. The bill allows parents or grandparents to make the contribution in after-tax money each year. The Accounts would grow with interest, and withdrawals for educational expenses would be tax-free. A+ accounts, as under current law, are targeted to middle income taxpayers. Eligibility phases out beginning at $95,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. Under these terms almost all New Mexicans would be eligible to set up one of these accounts. The bill allows parents to purchase contracts that lock-in tomorrow's tuition costs at today's prices. This bill would make these savings completely tax-free. Families purchasing plans would pay no federal income tax on interest build-up. Under current law, state-run programs allowed tax-deferred savings for college. However, savings in such plans, when withdrawn, are taxable as income to the student. This provision would benefit one million students. Twenty-one states have created tuition plans. New Mexico has not yet implemented one but it does have a proposal under consideration. If the state finalizes it pre-paid tuition plan future students would be able to benefit. Pre-paid tuition plans are a great way to secure the future. The bill extends through 2002, the exclusion for employers who pay for their employees' tuition and expands the program to cover graduate students beginning in 1998. The exclusion allows employers to pay up to $5,250 per year for educational expenses to benefit employees without requiring the employees to declare that benefit as income and pay federal income tax on the benefit. One million workers including 250,000 graduate students, would benefit from tax-free employer- provided education assistance provision. The bill also creates a new category of exempt facility bonds for privately-owned and publicly operated elementary and secondary school construction high growth areas. The bill makes $3 billion in school construction bonds over five years. This is enough to build 500 elementary schools. I hope the Senate will complete its work quickly on this bill and that the President will sign it. Mr. President, this education bill is a revolutionary education bill. When you look at it on its four corners as it has finally passed the Senate, it is not nibbling around the edges. It is asking we make some fundamentally different decisions about the Federal involvement in public education. I am not sure everybody understands that the Federal Government's involvement is about 7 percent. So when we talk about our U.S. Government having an impact on education for kindergarten through 12, about 7 percent of the money spent in the public schools across this land comes from the Federal Government. That means 93 percent comes from the States, municipalities, counties, boroughs and the like. From what I can tell, the Federal Government has been doing too much dictating for 7 percent of the resources that they give to the States, too much of a heavy hand trying to dictate outcomes with very little money. One of the worst examples of the Federal Government's involvement is when we decided we should help the disabled young people get into the mainstream of our public schools, a wonderful idea. Then we said we will pay 40 percent if you pay 60 percent. To this day, to this night as we stand here on the floor, the Federal Government has paid 9 percent, yet we impose regulations. The latest ones on the IDEA bill that implements our desire to help public education mainstream and educate disabled young people, this 9 percent has for many schools dictated such onerous mandates that some today are willing to violate the law in order to get before a judge to show that some of what we are doing is so arbitrary that it is not even common sense. Now, frankly, the revolution is twofold, as I see it. One, we are going to take a third of our public education money and say to our States: You have three options. You can take this one-third of our funding, a number of programs, and leave it just like it is. You can stay with these categorical programs where we put up a tiny bit of money. We have bureaucracy and regulations coming out of everybody's ears as we try to impact on education with a little sliver of money, with a marvelous purpose and goal attached to it. So, one, you can take it and keep it that way. The other is, you can say: State of New Mexico, State of Alabama, you send that money right to your school districts to be allocated to them proportionately and let them decide how to use the money in the best interests of their problems. Third is for the State to say: We will administer the money to the school districts and let them spend it the way we dictate. In all events, it is a marvelous research project. There is no downside for our kids. What we are doing is not working. So for those who stand up and worry about this new change, what is working today? Things are getting worse. We just had a TIMMS report that looked at our math and science kids, and it said the following, plain and simple: Up to the 5th grade, we are doing great. From 5th to 12th, we go right off the log, like the Titanic, into the ocean. We are at the bottom of the heap by the time the 12th grade arrives in the United States of America, the highest technology and science country in the world. We are sitting around worrying about one-third of the programs that we have been dumping on our school systems with highfalutin goals, and we are saying to the school systems that you can decide where to put that money. The other two-thirds we will leave the old way. Now, that is a revolution worth putting right before the public and seeing what happens. The other one is a little bit of a movement in the direction of merit pay and expanded teacher education. Both of them are revolutionary ideas and neither of them will harm anyone--in particular, the young people of our country. The chances are they will help our young people. I know the President is going to veto this bill, but I am as positive as anything that the change in public education from the U.S. Government will start with this bill. This bill is going to start a change that is going to be borderline revolutionary. We are either going to do more and accomplish more, or essentially we are going to find out why not. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I want to be clear, on my time I would like to yield part of my time to Senator Bingaman on a Steve Schiff memorial we want to introduce. We will not take much time.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici and Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 1978 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak for 1 additional minute and it not be counted against Senator Gorton's time.

Mr. DOMENICI. This will be a wonderful experiment, for if, indeed, some States choose to remain under the bureaucratic programs that in many cases do not even fit the needs, and in many cases States do not even participate because they are so far from what the needs are, if they want to, they keep the programs. And then a number of States may go the other route, it will be marvelous for Americans to be able to see, in about 5 or 6 years, which approach helped the kids more, which approach got more education dollars into the classroom on a day-by-day basis, addressing the major problems that the school boards and State school boards find to be the real areas of need at the State level. I think it is time to let States make that choice. Let us see which one works best--categorical strings attached, Federal programs that frequently miss the mark, or the approach that Senator Gorton has. I am delighted to be a cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate both Senator Gorton and Senator Frist. Senator Frist conducted a series of hearings in his Budget Committee task force from which came much of the factual information and evidence of the great need for reform in the programs that are now in the Gorton amendment. Frankly, I think what has happened is some are still looking at last year's Gorton amendment and assuming that is the bill before us. This is about one-third of the Department of Education's programs, a little over $10 billion out of a little over $30 billion. So one-third of it will be block granted. But the point of this amendment this year for those who thought we were going to in some way dismantle the programs nationally, this bill has options in it so if anybody wants to stand up and say these Federal programs are the greatest thing and the States love them and the school boards love them and they participate wholeheartedly and they are effective, they can say that. It really isn't true, but they can say that, and we can stand up and say, well, fine, if they are that good, obviously, the States and school boards across the land will choose the option to keep them just like they are and let the Federal Government run them. The healthy part of this is it is going to be a wonderful experiment.

Mr. DOMENICI. Two?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to address our environment and energy resources this Earth Day 1998. My perspective is derived from my quarter-century in the United States Senate, wherein I have devoted much of my time to environmental and energy concerns. When I started my tenure here in 1973, the commemoration of Earth Day was three years young. During the ensuing years, I have witnessed great strides towards the improvement of our nation's environment. We are uniquely fortunate to be prosperous enough to consciously choose to promote environmental concerns and conserve resources. This Earth Day 1998 should focus on creating ways to not only continue these improvements in our own country, but also assist other nations in improving their ability to protect the world's environment. The earth is currently the only home we all share. I would like to think that I have contributed to the continuing United States environmental improvement during my years of public service. I actively participated in the multi-year debate on the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, and I am pleased to say, played a key role in shaping the 1990 amendments which has reaped substantial decreases in air pollutants since the first Earth Day in 1970. Through passage of the Clean Water Act and reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the United States of America has vastly improved the quality of its rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, and has the safest drinking water in the world. Communities, while suffering some hardships, have been able to decrease emissions, provide clean, safe public areas for their citizens, and still remain a world economic leader. We have learned that costly regulation is not the solution, but cooperation with and incentives for the business community, as well as providing local control over local concerns, improves everyone's way of life. It is from the vantage point of my years of service in environmental and energy issues that I speak today about the divergence in regulation and policy from the best interests of our global climate. Several examples can be gleaned from the recent debates regarding emission standards and the global climate change document which emerged from Kyoto, Japan in December. Remember, since 1970, air pollution in this country has been steadily declining, despite the fact that the U.S. population has increased by almost 30% and vehicle travel has more than doubled. Now, I believe anyone will tell you they want clean air. However, one must also realize that any environmental improvement comes at some economic cost in our industrialized world. The United States may be responsible for 20 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions, but it also responsible for producing 26 percent of the world's goods and services. And we still have some of the most stringent environmental standards around. We need to keep finding ways to improve air quality, while maintaining a standard of living that is envied the world over. American cities have just recently been able to achieve the stringent air quality standards, and air quality is improving. In my home state of New Mexico, Albuquerque was one of the first U.S. cities to be removed from the list of violators of national carbon monoxide standards. Let's let all communities continue to improve, rather than impose strict and costly new air quality standards before we know that they are based in sound science. I believe that many of my distinguished colleagues here in the Senate know I have long been a strong proponent of basing governmental decision making on sound science. Indeed, in both the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Safe Drinking Water Act of last Congress, I fought hard to make sure ``sound science'' provisions were included in the legislation as a matter of policy. There has been some question about the scientific validity of the global warming theory. Theories do change. It was not all that long ago that my children were being taught in school that we were approaching another ice age. However, assuming that global climate change is occurring and emissions need to be reduced to improve the global climate, what is the logic of exempting developing countries from any global treaty aimed at reducing those emissions? Many developing countries, like China or India, are predicted to rapidly exceed developed countries' emission levels. Shouldn't every country be bound to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions? Why should this country bear the burden in this inequitable arrangement that will not reduce net emissions levels? Do not misunderstand me. We all have to live on this planet; we all should live well and live in a clean environment. I do not believe these goals are contradictory. Progress is not a curse. This nation is blessed to be leaders in Environmental protection and to also enjoy modern conveniences. I do applaud the fact that the climate change debate has focused some attention on looking to alternative and cleaner fuel sources. I do sometimes find it ironic that those environmental activists who speak the loudest about a dirty environment oppose development of the safest, cleanest energy source available in quantities to sustain our modern needs: nuclear energy. As we leave the 20th Century and head for a new millennium, we truly need to confront these strategic energy issues with careful logic and sound science. We live in the dominant economic, military, and cultural entity in the world. Our principles of government and economics are increasingly becoming the principles of the world. We can afford a clean world. As developing countries try to emulate our nation's success, we will find ourselves competing for resources that fuel modern economics. I have pledged to initiate a more forthright discussion of nuclear policy. We often define environmental debates in terms of ``us versus them.'' When it comes to global environment there is no them. We are all environmentalists. Nobody belittles the fundamental need for clean air and water. Some activists make their cause all-important, from whichever direction they come, and do not focus on what is right or fair. I believe that the emotional response is not always the logical alternative. As Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I have faced criticism from both sides on some of my positions. Now, the President has outlined a program to reduce U.S. production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by some time between 2008 and 2012. Unfortunately, the President's goals are not achievable without seriously impacting our economy. Our national laboratories have studied the issue. Their report indicates that to get to the President's goals we would have to impose a $50/ton carbon tax. That would result in an increase of 12.5 cents/ gallon for gas and 1.5 cents/kilowatt-hour for electricity--almost a doubling a of the current cost of coal or natural gas-generated electricity. However, Nuclear energy can help meet the global goal. I was very disappointed that the talks in Kyoto did not include any serious discussion about nuclear energy. As I have pointed out before, in 1996 alone, nuclear power plants prevented the release of 147 metric tons of carbon, 2.5 million tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Nuclear power is now only providing 20% of the United States' electricity, but those utilities' emissions of greenhouse gases were 25% lower than they would have been from fossil fuels. In the aspect of recognizing nuclear energy as a clean, economic fuel alternative, the United States has thus far failed to take the lead. Other countries, such as France, Japan, and Russia, have recognized the importance of nuclear energy sources. And there are many more beneficial uses of nuclear technologies, from the destruction of dangerous organisms in our food to enjoying healthier lives from medical procedures dependent on nuclear processes. The notation on our calendar should read that today, Earth Day, is the day we should begin to catch up with other countries that have prudently decided to use more nuclear power because it is good for the environment and makes good sense. I realize, however, that we cannot address the issue of nuclear energy without discussing the problem of nuclear waste. This should not deter us from a prudent course; we must, and we can, find ways to address nuclear waste safely. Currently there are exciting scientific ideas being developed to utilize the 60-75% of energy available in spent nuclear fuel rods while still reducing the half-life of residual material. I encourage debate this Earth Day on ways to improve the world's economy while maintaining a clean environment. Exploring nuclear energy issue is but one way. And indeed, the issue of energy use and environment is pertinent on more than one day a year. Let us just reflect on the possibilities for the new millennium as we proudly review our past successes.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a distinguished scholar and son of New Mexico. This year, Dr. Richard Greenleaf, Professor of Latin American History and Director of the Center for Latin American Studies at Tulane University, ends a remarkable career of more than a half century of research and teaching. Dr. Greenleaf has now returned to new Mexico to enjoy his retirement. A few weeks ago, Dr. Greenleaf's students and colleagues gathered at Tulane University to honor their mentor and friend. One of Dr. Greenleaf's former students, Dr. Stanley Hordes of the Latin American Institute of the University of New Mexico, wrote an essay to commemorate that event. The essay recounts Dr. Greenleaf's extraordinary career and warmly expresses the deep affection his students hold for him. For all his accomplishments, I salute Dr. Greenleaf. I welcome him home to New Mexico, and I join all those who are indebted to him for his lifetime commitment to scholarship and teaching. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Hordes' tribute to Dr. Greenleaf be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a very important education bill before us today. It builds upon the education savings accounts enacted last year. It expands the amount of money that can be saved and expands its uses to include K-12. About 14 million individuals are expected to sign up for these accounts by the year 2002. Contributions can be saved to cover college expenses or used when needed to pay for a wide range of education expenses during a student's elementary and high school years. Examples of eligible expenses include text books, computers, school uniforms, tutoring, advanced placement college credits, home schooling, after- school care and college preparation courses. A tutor can make the difference between success or a student falling hopelessly behind. A computer can open the world to a child. Children growing up in homes with computers will be the achievers. I am afraid children growing up in homes without computers will be at a disadvantage. This bill will allow money from an education savings account to be sent on a computer, software, lessons on how to use the computer. The bill has several solid worthwhile provisions. It raises the limits on annual contributions to an education IRA from $500 to $2,000 per year, and allows accounts to be used for K-12 expenses. The bill allows parents or grandparents to make the contribution in after-tax money each year. The accounts would grow with interest, and withdrawals for educational expenses would be tax-free. A+ accounts, as under current law, are targeted to middle income taxpayers. Eligibility phases out beginning at $95,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers. Under these terms almost all New Mexicans would be eligible to set up one of these accounts. The bill allows parents to purchase contracts that lock-in tomorrow's tuition costs at today's prices. This bill would make these savings completely tax-free. Families purchasing plans would pay no federal income tax on interest build-up. Under current law, state-run programs allowed tax-deferred savings for college. However, savings in such plans, when withdrawn, are taxable as income to the student. This provision would benefit 1 million students. Twenty-one states have created tuition plans. New Mexico has not yet implemented one but it does have a proposal under consideration. If the state finalizes its pre-paid tuition plan future students would be able to benefit. Pre-paid tuition plans are a great way to secure the future. The bill extends through 2002, the exclusion for employers who pay for their employees' tuition and expands the program to cover graduate students beginning in 1998. The exclusion allows employers to pay up to $5,250 per year for educational expenses to benefit employees without requiring the employees to declare that benefit as income and pay federal income tax on the benefit. One million workers, including 250,000 graduate students, would benefit from a tax-free employer- provided education assistance provision. The bill also creates a new category of exempt facility bonds for privately-owned and publicly operated elementary and secondary school construction high growth areas. The bill makes $3 billion in school construction bonds over five years. This is enough to build 500 elementary schools. I am pleased that the bill includes the amendment to provide new grants to states that (1) test K-12 teachers for proficiency in the subject area they teach and (2) has a merit based teacher compensation system. In line with my belief that teacher competence is key to improving American education, this bill creates incentives for states to establish teacher and merit pay policies. I believe the best teachers should be rewarded for their efforts to educate our children. A little competition in our public schools would be a good thing for rewarding those teachers who excel at their profession and motivating those who may need to improve their performance. This is but one step forward in our bid to improve the educational performance of American students. This amendment supports the principle that all children deserve to be taught by well-educated, competent and qualified teachers. I hope the Senate will complete its work quickly on this bill and that the President will sign it. The MERIT amendment would use the Eisenhower Professional Development Program (Title II) to provide incentive funds to states that establish periodic assessments of elementary and secondary school teachers, including a pay system to reward teachers based on merit and proven performance. The legislation would not reduce current funding for the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. Incentives will be provided to states that establish teacher testing and merit pay programs. The amendment permits the use of Federal education dollars to establish and administer these programs. The Eisenhower program, established in 1985, gives teachers and other educational staff access to sustained and high-quality professional development training. In 1998, the Congress approved $28.3 million, $10 million more than in 1997, for the Eisenhower program to provide in- service training for teachers in core subject areas. The President requested $50 million for the Eisenhower program in 1999, an increase of $26.7 million above the $28.3 million provided in 1998. New Mexico received $2.4 million in 1997 for all 89 school districts. The President funds his 1999 request at the expense of Title VI, Innovative Program Strategies, which New Mexico also heavily utilizes. He requests no funding for this program, which received $350 million in 1998. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Is there anything sinister about your amendment?